religious teaching which ignores the well-established results of science, and the fruit yielded by the laborious exertions of the scholars and teachers of the church for centuries; when, for example, I hear the authority of Christ as a teacher, staked upon the proposition that the deluge was universal -- that it rose above the pinnacles of the Andes; or when I listen to a mystical exposition of the book of Joshua, according to an exploded. allegorical style of interpretation, which was long ago hooted out of all Christian schools. Dogmatic verdicts of uninstructed or half-instructed exhorters, on the nature and limits of inspiration, and like topics, on which the most thoughtful, learned. and reverent students speak with hesitation, not only manifest conceit and arrogance, but they are positively mischievous in their effect on the minds of intelligent and well educated hearers. We live in an age of free inquiry and discussion; and in the intellectual ferment of the time, it behooves us "to prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good." It is a piece of folly for any church wantonly ard needlessly to erect a barrier between itself and the cultured class; as if intellectual activity and education, in a Christian community, were of necessity tainted with evil. We have to steer our way between the spurious liberalism, which is only another name for indifferentism, a mood of thought which effaces all definite outlines of truth, and the narrowness which imprisons itself in traditional opinion, and applies to every one the test of some provincial shibboleth. The revival of Millenarianism, which was excluded from Christian theology by the mature judgment of the ancient church, and which is denounced in the most influential and famous of the Protestants' creeds, the Augsburg Confession, as a Judaical opinion, illustrates the need of a more intelligent and comprehensive grasp of the Scriptures as a whole, and of the great idea of the kingdom of God, in the successive stages of its development, up to the joyful consummation when it shall be true of the world in which the leaven of Christ has been deposited, that "the whole is leavened." *

* By Millenarianism is meant the doctrine that Christ, at His second advent, will surround Himself with His saints, those who have died being raised to life, and establish a visible reign on the earth-it is commonly held, at Jerusalem to continue for a limited period, generally thought to be a thousand years, after

which will occur the resurrection of the wicked and the final judgment. The capital feature of this doctrine is the visible presence and dominion of Christ on this earth, prior to the judgment and the end of the world. It is quite possible to hold that Christ is soon to come, without being a Millenarian. The two tenets have no connection with one another. Nor does the belief that when the second coming-the Parovsia - shall occur, the world of mankind will be only in part converted, carry with it, of necessity, the Millenarian theory. Is Christ coming at the end of the world, and to judge the world, or is He coming at an earlier date, and to establish, for a certain period, a visible kingdom? Millenarianism asserts the latter of these hypotheses.

As to the acceptance of the Millenarian doctrine in the early church, Neander fairly states the matter, in the following passage (Church History, Am. transl., i, 651):-"What we have just said, however, is not to be so understood as if Chiliasm had ever formed a part of the general creed of the church. Our sources of information from different parts of the church, in these early times, are too scanty to enable us to say anything on this point with certainty and positiveness. Wherever we meet with Chiliasm, in Papias, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, everything goes to indicate that it was diffused from one country and from a single fountain-head. We perceive a difference in the case of those churches where originally an antiJewish tendency prevailed, as in the church at Rome. We find subsequently at Rome an anti-Chiliast tendency. Might not this have existed from the first, and only have been called out more openly by the opposition to Montanism? The same may be said also of an anti-Chiliast tendency which Irenæus combats, and which he expressly distinguishes from the common anti-Chiliastic tendency of Gnosticism." The circumstance that the great Alexandrian School, under the lead of Origen, with whom in all probability, his predecessor, Clement, agreed, strenu. ously opposed Chiliasm, proves that in the second and third centuries, it was far from being unanimously accepted.

The rejection of Chiliasm in the ancient church was not due to the growth of Papal corruptions. The most zealous anti-Chiliasts were the Alexandrians, who were at the farthest remove from hierarchical tendencies. The opposition of Caius, of Rome, in the middle of the third century, to this tenet had no connection with ecclesiastical usurpation. He and Dionysius of Alexandria, a very able man, were, at that early day, united in opinion on the subject. Moreover, Chiliasm lingered much longer in the West, where Rome was more influential, than in the East. It was the actual moral progress of Christianity in the Roman empire, more than any other cause, which made its conversion seem practicable, and thus undermined the Chiliastic theory. The two great agencies against it were the Alexandrian teachers and the reaction against Montanism. Augustine's rejection of Millenarianism has for its deepest root a faith in the moral power of the Gospel, through the Spirit, to overcome its foes. No doubt, the conversion of Constantine confirmed the growing confidence of the church in the moral force of Christianity. It was hard for the first Christians to believe that the Gospel could conquer without a visible and stupendous miracle. It was natural to look to the coming of the Lord as the means of destroying the imperial Power which was treading them under foot. As the church drew increasing numbers within its pale, as it emerged from the catacombs, as, at length, it "placed upon its brow the diadem of the Cæsars," its courage rose, and theories of the kingdom that were born of conscious feebleness and despair took their flight.

A number of Reformers, especially Luther in certain moods of feeling, expected that Christ was soon to appear, not, however, to found an earthly kingdom, but to judge the world, and to bring it to an end. They held that He would come, as the Creed declares, "to judge the quick and the dead" (Conf. Aug., III.). More explicitly they say of their churches (XVII.): "They also teach that Christ will appear at the end of the world (in consummatione mundi) to judge, and will raise all the dead, will give to the pious and elect eternal life and perpetual joys, but impious men and devils He will condemn to torments without end. They condemn Anabaptists who think that the punishments of condemned men and devils will end. They condemn, also, others, who now scatter Judaic opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the pious will possess the dominion of the world, the impious being everywhere put down." Melanchthon, who wrote the Augsburg Confession, makes the intent of the Article clear in that chapter of his theological treatise where he expatiates on the spiritual nature of the rule of Christ. "There were, also, in the old time," he says, "fanatical Chiliasts and Pepusians [Montanists] who dreamed of such an anabaptist kingdom" (Loci Comm., IV.). The reformers, then, were not Millenarians, although some of them may be styled Second Adventists.

ARTICLE IV.-A SCHOLAR OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

SECOND PAPER. (Continued from the November Number, 1878.)

OF the four bishoprics into which Wales was and still is divided, that of St. David's was much the most important. This was not alone due to its size. It had originally been metropolitan in its character, and while the country was independent, its archbishop exercised jurisdiction over the three subordinate sees. But the political subjection of Wales

involved also the ecclesiastical. First went the title of archbishop, though the power survived. But in the reign of Henry I. the latter also disappeared, and the see of St. David's was made part of the province of Canterbury. This fact was gall and wormwood to a people impatient of anything that bore the mark of subjugation to a foreign yoke. Many were the efforts made to regain their ancient rights, to restore to the oldest bishopric of Wales its metropolitan character. In a gallant but fruitless struggle to attain this end, no small share of the stormy life of Giraldus was passed.

The first opportunity he had of displaying his interest in this question was in the general ecclesiastical council which was held at Westminster in the year 1175. Thither all the prominent ecclesiastics of the diocese of St. David's repaired, with the hope of finding redress for their long-standing griev ance. In this movement, their head, the bishop, could not take any direct part; for at his consecration he had abjured for himself the revival of any such controversy. But this did not affect the action of his subordinates. They first sounded the mind of the king, and sought to secure his favor by arguments that in that age were among the most potent at the courts of princes. Giraldus tells us without any hesitation that no small amount of money was given both to the sovereign and to his counsellors to bring about the desired result. The monarch, however, was more inclined to look with favor upon the money than upon the cause it was given to support. He delayed for a long time returning any answer, and when it

came it was not very acceptable. He refused to entertain the proposition, though it did not occur to him to restore the money which had failed to influence him. All in consequence that the representatives of the diocese could do was to assert in presence of the papal legate the ancient metropolitan rights and dignity of the see of St. David's.

The following year witnessed events of a more stirring character. In May, 1176, the bishop of St. David's died. No nomination or election to fill such a vacancy could be made until the king had been formally notified of the death of the incumbent, and had given his assent to the choice of a successor. But the canons of the diocese, upon whom devolved. the nomination, were in a hurry. They immediately assembled and after long discussion unanimously agreed to present the names of their four archdeacons as candidates for the vacant dignity; but every one assumed that Giraldus would be the one selected. At least he tells us so. So confident were they in the success of their scheme and the wisdom of their course, that on the impulse of the moment they broke forth into a hymn of praise. The populace on the outside, hearing that a bishop had been elected, and that Giraldus was the man, united in confirming the choice with loud acclamations.

But a night's rest brought back reflection, at least to the one most. interested. The next morning Giraldus, entering the church, renounced the nomination of himself, though he declared he should not be wanting in the effort to uphold the free and legitimate election of his own church. Nor did he delay taking measures to remedy the blunder which had been made. He hurried to the king of England. But the news of the transaction had already reached the monarch. He was exceedingly indignant, and immediately ordered all the canons who had taken part in the proceeding to be deprived of their lands and revenues. But it was against Giraldus that his wrath was mainly directed and Giraldus does not neglect to tell us the reason why. The king was afraid of him. Not by any one, save by him, could the recovery of the rights of St. David's be accomplished; and the ruler of England dreaded to see in a position of power one like the archdeacon of Brecknock, distinguished for his high spirit and allied by blood to the lead